gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote

Kalle Kivimaa | 30 Dec 01:03

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Joerg Jaspert <joerg <at> debian.org> writes:
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]

This would mean that you need almost as many sponsors as is required
for the quorum (2Q vs 3Q). I think that is too much. I think floor(Q)
sponsors would be a more appropriate number.

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*           PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer           *

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

headers

Stephen Gran | 30 Dec 01:11

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

This one time, at band camp, Kalle Kivimaa said:
> Joerg Jaspert <joerg <at> debian.org> writes:
> >  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> >     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
> 
> This would mean that you need almost as many sponsors as is required
> for the quorum (2Q vs 3Q). I think that is too much. I think floor(Q)
> sponsors would be a more appropriate number.

That just means that the number of people who think the vote is even
worth having is not that different to the number of votes required to
make it valid.  That's probably not all that bad a thing, IMHO.
--

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran <at> debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

headers

Peter Samuelson | 30 Dec 20:12

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions


[Stephen Gran]
> That just means that the number of people who think the vote is even
> worth having is not that different to the number of votes required to
> make it valid.  That's probably not all that bad a thing, IMHO.

If that is sound reasoning, then it is also a reason to have a higher
number of required sponsors for amendments to foundation documents.
That said, I think I agree that 2Q is too high but current K is too
low.  (Split the difference?  Q + K/2....)

Another issue with raising the bar is that if you formally propose
something before it is fully ready, such that it will need two or three
small modifications, it would get very confusing who has seconded what
versions of the text - guaranteed great fun for the Secretary role.
Not a new issue, but it would get worse.  I suppose this would serve as
social engineering to encourage people to circulate drafts for awhile
before proposing them.
--

-- 
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/

headers

Don Armstrong | 30 Dec 01:18

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]

Whatever we decide to do should specifically modify the constitution;
that is

a) §4.2.1 is replaced with "The Developers follow the Standard
Resolution Procedure, below. A resolution or amendment is introduced
if proposed by any Developer and sponsored by at least floor(2Q) other
Developers, or if proposed by the Project Leader or the Technical
Committee."

b) §4.2.2.2 is replaced with "If such a resolution is sponsored by at
least floor(Q) Developers, or if it is proposed by the Technical
Committee, the resolution puts the decision immediately on hold
(provided that resolution itself says so)."

etc.

I'd also suggest alternatively, that we change K to be floor(Q), and
modify §4.2.1 to be 2K, §4.2.2.2 to be K, and §4.2.2.3 to be left
alone, which would have the same effect, but with fewer changes (and
we could define floor(Q) instead of assuming it to be known.)

(Continue reading)

headers

Ben Finney | 30 Dec 01:43

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:

> 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> options exist.

Absolutely agreed with this sentiment.

> You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> plan on ranking first.

This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in order
to get it voted on?

-- 
 \           “The cost of education is trivial compared to the cost of |
  `\                                     ignorance.” —Thomas Jefferson |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

headers

Don Armstrong | 30 Dec 02:03

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

[switching to -vote only, since this is about the process of voting]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in
> order to get it voted on?

Because it can potentially lead to a waste of everyone's time. One of
the major reasons why we require proposals and seconds is to limit the
options proposed to ones that a significant proportion of Developers
actually agree with and plan on voting for.

That's not to say that you shouldn't offer suggestions for
improvements in options that you don't agree with; you just shouldn't
propose or second them. [If it's popular enough to be a useful option,
the people with whom the option is popular will propose and second;
it's not like it's hard to do.]

Don Armstrong

--

-- 
If you have the slightest bit of intellectual integrity you cannot
support the government. -- anonymous

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

headers

Russ Allbery | 30 Dec 02:30

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Ben Finney <ben+debian <at> benfinney.id.au> writes:
> Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:

>> You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
>> plan on ranking first.

> This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in order to
> get it voted on?

Why vote on something no one actually wants?  It just makes the ballot
more complex and has the potential to add confusion and wording problems
for no gain.

If it's a viable option, it will get enough seconds in its own right.  If
it doesn't, it's so unpopular that there's no point in voting on it.

The only case where I could see it making sense to second options one
personally doesn't support is if one believes for some reason that there
is a huge disconnect between the people reading debian-vote and seconding
proposals and the project as a whole, so huge that an option that would
win in the larger vote doesn't have enough advocates reading debian-vote
to get sufficient seconds.  This seems unlikely to me.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

headers

Ben Finney | 30 Dec 05:47

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Russ Allbery <rra <at> debian.org> writes:

> Ben Finney <ben+debian <at> benfinney.id.au> writes:
> > Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:
> 
> >> You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> >> plan on ranking first.
> 
> > This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> > phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in
> > order to get it voted on?
> 
> Why vote on something no one actually wants?

I don't know. I didn't know anyone was asking for that to happen.

> If it's a viable option, it will get enough seconds in its own
> right.

Yes, certainly.

I get the feeling you've excluded the middle between “propose an
option one does not plan on raking first”, and “propose an option
no-one wants on the ballot”.

> The only case where I could see it making sense to second options
> one personally doesn't support is if one believes for some reason
> that there is a huge disconnect between the people reading
> debian-vote and seconding proposals and the project as a whole, so
> huge that an option that would win in the larger vote doesn't have

(Continue reading)

headers

Don Armstrong | 30 Dec 06:41

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> Another purpose, that I've seen recently a few times, is people
> proposing *several* discrete options for a ballot, carefully
> phrasing them to be distinct in order to clarify the meaning of the
> vote's result.

If no one is going to rank those options highly, there's no purpose in
proposing them. I could see someone drafting them as an option for
someone else who planned on ranking them highly to actually propose
and second.

> According to Don's statement above, this is not a good reason to
> propose options. I disagree; I think it's commendable and in the
> spirit of his earlier statement (in the same message) to strive for
> clarity and precision in the ballot options.

Options that (almost) no one actually supports don't increase clarity.
Our voting system isn't a survey of developers; it's a means of
making decisions.

Don Armstrong

--

-- 
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that
you do it.
 -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

(Continue reading)

headers

Ben Finney | 30 Dec 07:51

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:

> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Another purpose, that I've seen recently a few times, is people
> > proposing *several* discrete options for a ballot, carefully
> > phrasing them to be distinct in order to clarify the meaning of
> > the vote's result.
> 
> If no one is going to rank those options highly, there's no purpose
> in proposing them.

Agreed on that.

> I could see someone drafting them as an option for someone else who
> planned on ranking them highly to actually propose and second.

Fine. Your original statement denied this possibility, which was all I
wanted to address.

> > According to Don's statement above, this is not a good reason to
> > propose options. I disagree; I think it's commendable and in the
> > spirit of his earlier statement (in the same message) to strive
> > for clarity and precision in the ballot options.
> 
> Options that (almost) no one actually supports don't increase
> clarity.

It's this implicit binding of “the proposer doesn't support the
option” with “(almost) no-one actually supports the option” that I
find unneccessary and overly restrictive. It seems you agree, but your

(Continue reading)

headers

Russ Allbery | 30 Dec 06:47

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Ben Finney <ben+debian <at> benfinney.id.au> writes:

> I get the feeling you've excluded the middle between “propose an option
> one does not plan on raking first”, and “propose an option no-one
> wants on the ballot”.

I'm not sure that I find it usefully different, unless what you're
proposing is a compromise that you hope everyone will be able to agree
upon.  I suppose that's a useful addition to Don's statement; I could see
proposing that even though it wasn't one's first choice.

> Another purpose, that I've seen recently a few times, is people
> proposing *several* discrete options for a ballot, carefully phrasing
> them to be distinct in order to clarify the meaning of the vote's
> result.

I think that's a good exercise to write clear proposals, but I don't see a
reason to then formally propose all of them.  I'd write them all up as
part of that exercise and then propose the one that I agree with, offering
the others to those who agree with them to put forward if they choose.

Writing options that you don't personally agree with is full of problems.
It's very difficult to be objectively fair in capturing an option that you
don't believe in and wouldn't argue for.  I'd much rather see the people
who really believe in an option step forward to propose it.

> According to Don's statement above, this is not a good reason to
> propose options. I disagree; I think it's commendable and in the
> spirit of his earlier statement (in the same message) to strive for
> clarity and precision in the ballot options.

(Continue reading)

headers

Ben Finney | 30 Dec 07:59

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Russ Allbery <rra <at> debian.org> writes:

> Sure, I'm all for clarity and precision. I just don't see a reason
> to put the ones that no one wants to champion on the final ballot.

Nor do I. You still seem to be making an unnecessary connection
between “the option isn't well supported enough to be on the ballot”
and “there's no good reason to propose the option in the first place”.
That, or you seem to think I'm proposing to lower the barrier of entry
for options, once proposed, to appear on the ballot; that's not what
I'm saying either.

I think it can be a good idea to propose an option that one wants to
see voted on, especially if one honestly thinks that option could
represent the opinion of other people in the vote.

I do tend to agree that *seconding* an already-proposed option that
one doesn't intend to rank high is less justifiable than proposing
such an option.

-- 
 \       “Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who |
  `\   speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.” —Ambrose |
_o__)                           Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 |
Ben Finney

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

(Continue reading)

headers

Russ Allbery | 30 Dec 18:31

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Ben Finney <ben+debian <at> benfinney.id.au> writes:

> I think it can be a good idea to propose an option that one wants to
> see voted on, especially if one honestly thinks that option could
> represent the opinion of other people in the vote.

This is what I disagree with for all the reasons that I already stated
(and which I won't reiterate again).  The formal proposal is essentially
the first second towards putting it on the ballot.  If you don't actually
agree with the proposal, I don't think you should be doing either.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

headers

Matthew Johnson | 30 Dec 21:31

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue Dec 30 09:31, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney <ben+debian <at> benfinney.id.au> writes:
> 
> > I think it can be a good idea to propose an option that one wants to
> > see voted on, especially if one honestly thinks that option could
> > represent the opinion of other people in the vote.
> 
> This is what I disagree with for all the reasons that I already stated
> (and which I won't reiterate again).  The formal proposal is essentially
> the first second towards putting it on the ballot.  If you don't actually
> agree with the proposal, I don't think you should be doing either.

I'd also add that sometimes it seems like a good idea to make sure that
an opinion which has been voiced but not yet proposed is there so you
can demonstrate that the project really doesn't want it and you can cite
this next time it's raised rather than have the possible ambiguity. Note
that I don't think that's a good reason to call a vote, but to propose
an amendment... maybe.

Matt
--

-- 
Matthew Johnson

headers

Chris Waters | 4 Jan 00:10

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:47:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

> I'm not sure that I find it usefully different, unless what you're
> proposing is a compromise that you hope everyone will be able to agree
> upon.

I think that's a hugely important ability.  I'm also worried that
setting the thresholds too high for alternatives may skew the
available options in the direction of the opinions of those who spend
too much time following the political process and away from the
rank-and-file who are more concerned with making an operating system.

For this reason, while I support the idea of increasing the number of
supporters to _start_ a GR, I'd like to keep the number required to
add an _alternative_ at K!  Once we realize that there's really a
decision to make, I think we should make sure that as many options are
on the table as possible!  Otherwise we risk being forced to decide
between two extremist positions (one possibly represented by "none of
the above/further discussion") with no compromises available.

> Writing options that you don't personally agree with is full of problems.
> It's very difficult to be objectively fair in capturing an option that you
> don't believe in and wouldn't argue for.  I'd much rather see the people
> who really believe in an option step forward to propose it.

I think that too few people bother to track the active political
discussions (I'm  one who usually doesn't) to make that a viable
position.  Furthermore, it prevents those who support the status quo
from proposing _anything_, even a compromise they could live with.
And I think that's a _very_ bad idea!

(Continue reading)

headers

Adeodato Simó | 1 Jan 20:13

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

* Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:

> Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:

> > You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> > plan on ranking first.

> This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in order
> to get it voted on?

I can't believe I'm reading this.

You should not write options you are not going to rank first, because
the people who do care about that option winning should get to decide
what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion and concerns.

(On the other hand, I think seconding is different, and that it should
be okay to second stuff even just because "I think it's good for it to
be on the ballot".)

-- 
Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org

Que no te vendan amor sin espinas
                -- Joaquín Sabina, Noches de boda

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org

(Continue reading)

headers

Ben Finney | 1 Jan 23:17

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Adeodato Simó <dato <at> net.com.org.es> writes:

> * Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:
> 
> > Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:
> 
> > > You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you
> > > don't plan on ranking first.

(Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that you
don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)

> > This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> > phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in
> > order to get it voted on?
> 
> I can't believe I'm reading this.

I think perhaps you're reading more into it than I wrote.

> You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
> because the people who do care about that option winning should get
> to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion
> and concerns.

The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as
much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed.
They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to
second the wording as already proposed, or anything else.

(Continue reading)

headers

Adeodato Simó | 1 Jan 23:37

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

* Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]:

> > You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
> > because the people who do care about that option winning should get
> > to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion
> > and concerns.

> The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as
> much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed.
> They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to
> second the wording as already proposed, or anything else.

No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce
resource. Like you would in a situation of limited water supply in a
boat shared with friends, you should act responsibly and not consume one
unit unless painstakingly necessary.

This is, of course, my opinion, and you're welcome to disagree. Also,
I'll probably won't be interested in discussing this any further, so
please don't take my lack of answer to your next message as lack of
disagreement.

-- 
Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org

                                        Listening to: Vanessa-Mae - Doun

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org

(Continue reading)

headers

Ben Finney | 2 Jan 00:32

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Adeodato Simó <dato <at> net.com.org.es> writes:

> * Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]:
> 
> > > You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
> > > because the people who do care about that option winning should
> > > get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete
> > > opinion and concerns.
> 
> > The people who do care about such an option winning have at least
> > as much freedom to decide as they did before the option was
> > proposed. They can decide whether they want to propose their own
> > wording, or to second the wording as already proposed, or anything
> > else.
> 
> No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very
> scarce resource.

Agreed. I don't see what in my position you're disagreeing with, but
I'm likewise no longer interested in this side discussion as I feel
it's already resolved a few days ago. We can leave it here.

-- 
 \     “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to |
  `\    persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” —Carl |
_o__)                                                            Sagan |
Ben Finney

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org

(Continue reading)

headers

Bernhard R. Link | 2 Jan 12:50

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

* Adeodato Simó <dato <at> net.com.org.es> [090101 23:36]:
> > The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as
> > much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed.
> > They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to
> > second the wording as already proposed, or anything else.
>
> No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce
> resource. Like you would in a situation of limited water supply in a
> boat shared with friends, you should act responsibly and not consume one
> unit unless painstakingly necessary.

I massively disagree here. An option on an ballot is there to allow the
voters to express what should be done. Without this it just ends up in
a "who suggested something in that direction first" play. We don't need
condorcet when we are afraid of people using the democracy introduced by
it. (Too many options might be bad, but better having too many but to
less, as the first suggestor throw out the water tank as he suggested
everyone should drink salt water and there is enough of it...)

Hochachtungsvoll,
	Bernhard R. Link

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

headers

Chris Waters | 4 Jan 00:37

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:50:21PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Adeodato Simó <dato <at> net.com.org.es> [090101 23:36]:

> > No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce
> > resource. Like you would in a situation of limited water supply in a
> > boat shared with friends, you should act responsibly and not consume one
> > unit unless painstakingly necessary.

> I massively disagree here.

Me too.  In fact, I might go so far as to say that I couldn't possibly
disagree more!

[ 1 ] Harder to start GRs, but just as easy to add an option
[ 4 ] Harder to start GRs or add options
[ 3 ] "Further discussion"
[ 2 ] No. Just no.  :)

Part of the problem is that we never have "no, just no" on our
ballots, so the only alternative is to vote "further discussion", even
if you have no interest whatsoever in any further discussion, and, as
far as you're concerned, the matter is settled.

The flip side of this is that people can be (I know I can be)
reluctant to vote "further discussion", because it feels like you're
voting "no, just no".  So, if it's harder to add options, people are
more likely to vote for choices they really don't like.  (I know that
I have.)
--

-- 
Chris Waters           |  Pneumonoultra-        osis is too long

(Continue reading)

headers

Don Armstrong | 4 Jan 03:04

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> Part of the problem is that we never have "no, just no" on our
> ballots, so the only alternative is to vote "further discussion",
> even if you have no interest whatsoever in any further discussion,
> and, as far as you're concerned, the matter is settled.

You can easily propose and/or second an option that reaffirms the
status quo if you think the matter should be settled completely. If
not enough people second it, then the status quo isn't acceptable to
enough people in the project for it to be a viable option.

> So, if it's harder to add options, people are more likely to vote
> for choices they really don't like. (I know that I have.)

The idea is to make it more difficult to add options so that options
that have no chance of winning are not added. Secondarily, it's to try
to get people to spend more time in the deliberation stage to perfect
the options and achieve compromise before an option ends up on the
ballot.

Ideally this will mean that we'll have options that represent large
parts of the project, with compromises that are acceptable to all of
the project, with no options that are only acceptable to small parts
of the project.

Don Armstrong

--

-- 
The attackers hadn't simply robbed the bank. They had carried off
everything portable, including the security cameras, the carpets, the

(Continue reading)

headers

Charles Plessy | 4 Jan 09:36

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Hi all,

we could even go further and change towards a paradigm similar to Demexp
(demexp.org): permanent vote.

For non-anonymous votes it is very easy: when the number of seconders is more
than half of the number actively voting developers, the GR is accepted. We
could for instance define it as half the number of voters to the yearly DPL
election.

Have a nice day,

(and please stop cross-posting).

--

-- 
Charles Plessy

headers

Chris Waters | 4 Jan 00:18

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:

> (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
> you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)

Bad, bad idea!  What if you are planning to rank "Further Discussion"
as 1, but staill have a compromise you'd be willing to accept that you
think is _far_ better than anything _else_ that's been proposed?

I think the best solution is simply to say, "don't propose (or second)
something you're not willing to live with."

-- 
Chris Waters           |  Pneumonoultra-        osis is too long
xtifr <at> debian.org       |  microscopicsilico-    to fit into a single
or xtifr <at> speakeasy.net |  volcaniconi-          standalone haiku

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

headers

Don Armstrong | 4 Jan 02:27

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: 
> > (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
> > you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
> 
> Bad, bad idea! What if you are planning to rank "Further Discussion"
> as 1, but staill have a compromise you'd be willing to accept that
> you think is _far_ better than anything _else_ that's been proposed?

If you're willing to accept a compromise, you rank it above further
discussion. The very point of ranking FD above an option is to
indicate that you don't find a specific option an acceptable solution
at all, and would rather have futher discussion than accepting it.

Don Armstrong

--

-- 
Of course, there are cases where only a rare individual will have the
vision to perceive a system which governs many people's lives; a
system which had never before even been recognized as a system; then
such people often devote their lives to convincing other people that
the system really is there and that it aught to be exited from. 
 -- Douglas R. Hofstadter _Gödel Escher Bach. Eternal Golden Braid_

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

headers

Chris Waters | 4 Jan 14:37

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 05:27:26PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: 
> > > (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
> > > you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
> > 
> > Bad, bad idea! What if you are planning to rank "Further Discussion"
> > as 1, but staill have a compromise you'd be willing to accept that
> > you think is _far_ better than anything _else_ that's been proposed?

> If you're willing to accept a compromise, you rank it above further
> discussion. The very point of ranking FD above an option is to
> indicate that you don't find a specific option an acceptable solution
> at all, and would rather have futher discussion than accepting it.

I still don't see any reason why someone shouldn't be able to propose
an option they find less unacceptable than the options already on the
table.  Just because you don't want any of them doesn't mean that you
can't think some options are worse than others.

I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
can't accept compromise.

And how are we going to police this nonsense?  Check the votes
afterwards and sanction someone if they proposed or seconded an option
and then didn't support it with their vote?  That's just stupid.  In
fact, the whole notion of restricting options is stupid.  If we're
going to go to the trouble of having a vote, we owe it to ourselves to
make sure that the right options are all available.

(Continue reading)

headers

Ben Finney | 4 Jan 21:35

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Chris Waters <xtifr <at> debian.org> writes:

> And how are we going to police this nonsense? Check the votes
> afterwards and sanction someone if they proposed or seconded an
> option and then didn't support it with their vote? That's just
> stupid.

Indeed, and AFAICT no-one was proposing that. Don's suggestion was a
*principle* offered to guide the discussion on good or bad directions
of change to the GR drafting process.

-- 
 \       “Remember: every member of your ‘target audience’ also owns a |
  `\   broadcasting station. These ‘targets’ can shoot back.” —Michael |
_o__)               Rathbun to advertisers, news.admin.net-abuse.email |
Ben Finney

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

headers

Stephen Gran | 4 Jan 23:07

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
> I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
> can't accept compromise.

I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
to mean.  The only reason to vote FD is if you can't compromise on any
of the options on the ballot.
--

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran <at> debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

headers

Chris Waters | 5 Jan 05:43

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 10:07:51PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
> > I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
> > can't accept compromise.

> I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
> to mean.  The only reason to vote FD is if you can't compromise on any
> of the options on the ballot.

Hogwash!  If that's the case, we should simply discard any rankings on
a ballot below FD, AND we need to start offering an option for "I
prefer none of these, but would be willing to compromise."  Because
not wanting any of the options, but still having (strong) opinions on
which are more and which are less desirable is still a valid
position--one I find myself in frequently IRL.

So, according to your view of voting, if I actually would prefer
further discussion (meaning that literally, and not with whatever
magical special meaning you think it has on a Debian ballot), but am
still willing to compromise and have opinions about which of the
options I don't like are better than others, what should I do?  Not
express my honest opinion (that further discussion would be better)?
And possibly allow my very-least-favorite option to win through
inaction?  That's ridiculous!

If I followed your suggestion about what it's "supposed to mean"
(according to whom, BTW?), I couldn't vote honestly--I would have to
vote strategically, supporting positions I don't support, unless I
gave up hope completely.  Sorry, not going to happen.

(Continue reading)

headers

Ben Finney | 5 Jan 05:58

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Chris Waters <xtifr <at> debian.org> writes:

> So, according to your view of voting, if I actually would prefer
> further discussion (meaning that literally, and not with whatever
> magical special meaning you think it has on a Debian ballot), but am
> still willing to compromise and have opinions about which of the
> options I don't like are better than others, what should I do?

You should rank the options in the order you prefer them: by your
description, rank “Further Discussion” as 1, one or more other
options as 2, some other option(s) as 3, and so on to reflect your
preferences. Why is this such a confusing issue?

-- 
 \       “Liberty, n. One of imagination's most precious possessions.” |
  `\                   —Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

headers

Don Armstrong | 5 Jan 08:21

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> Because not wanting any of the options, but still having (strong)
> opinions on which are more and which are less desirable is still a
> valid position--one I find myself in frequently IRL.

It's fine to rank options you prefer further discussion to, because
that's a valid preference. It expresses: "I'd rather die a painless
death now than die a painful death now, but I'd rather have further
discussion than either of those options." That doesn't mean that you
should second either of those options to get them to appear on the
ballot. You don't want either of them to happen, so the ideal ballot
has neither, and if enough supporters of either want them to happen,
they'll second those options themselves.

> if I actually would prefer further discussion, but am still willing
> to compromise and have opinions about which of the options I don't
> like are better than others, what should I do?

Express your opinion on them when voting, but don't second them. If a
majority doesn't prefer them to further discussion, those options will
be discarded due to majority; having options that a majority doesn't
prefer to further discussion on a ballot is a waste of time. An even
more painful waste of time is options which not even 1.5Q people
prefer to further discussion, because those options had no chance at
all of being selected.

If they actually represent options that will pass the FD majority
hurdle, people who actually prefer those options to FD will second
them, and will easily be able to meet K, and should be able to meet Q
or 2Q.

(Continue reading)

headers

Guido Trotter | 30 Dec 17:06

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:

Hi,

> 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> options exist. You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
> you don't plan on ranking first.

Well, let's say you should not propose or second an option you don't plan to
rank above "further discussion"... Maybe you'll rank it lower than another
option, but that's what the condorcet voting system allows us to (provide order
of preference among acceptable options). An option that is not "your favorite"
might still be "very good" for you as an outcome... :)

Thanks,

Guido

headers

Don Armstrong | 31 Dec 00:43

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Guido Trotter wrote:
> Well, let's say you should not propose or second an option you don't
> plan to rank above "further discussion".

I agree. "Rank first" is a bit absolutist; "Rank highly" is more
appropriate, and what I used in later mails in this thread.

Don Armstrong

--

-- 
Of course, there are cases where only a rare individual will have the
vision to perceive a system which governs many people's lives; a
system which had never before even been recognized as a system; then
such people often devote their lives to convincing other people that
the system really is there and that it aught to be exited from. 
 -- Douglas R. Hofstadter _Gödel Escher Bach. Eternal Golden Braid_

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

headers

Stefano Zacchiroli | 31 Dec 15:34

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> plan on ranking first.

I've thought a bit about it, and I think that there would be no
unpleasant side-effects; so I agree with it.

The case I considered is a recent one, where I sponsored [1] two more
direct explicit ballot choices (though in opposition one with the
other) than the only alternative choice that was previously
available. I did that because I thought voting on those two _instead_
of voting on the previous one was more telling.  But even in that case
I agree that even if I had seconded only the one that in fact I ranked
first in my ballot, someone else would have seconded the other. If
not, that choice could have been removed from the ballot doing no
harm.

Practically though, if yours proposal is agreed upon, I think we
should make explicit in the constitution that interpretation of
"seconds" ("sponsoring", using the constitutional term).  Currently
the constitution says nothing about why one should sponsor or not a
choice, hence it is open to both interpretations.

Cheers.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00027.html

--

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/

(Continue reading)

headers

Gunnar Wolf | 31 Dec 19:35

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Don Armstrong dijo [Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800]:
> (...) You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
> you don't plan on ranking first.

(or high, as others have said in this thread)

I am not sure about this... Sometimes you are interested in creating a
rich enough set of options to get a fair spread of options to be voted
on. Supporting/endorsing/seconding an option should not IMHO mean "I
want this option to be ranked high", but "I believe this option should
appear in the ballot" - Even if you don't personally agree with it.

--

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf <at> gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF

headers

Lucas Nussbaum | 2 Jan 17:52

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On 31/12/08 at 12:35 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Don Armstrong dijo [Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800]:
> > (...) You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
> > you don't plan on ranking first.
> 
> (or high, as others have said in this thread)
> 
> I am not sure about this... Sometimes you are interested in creating a
> rich enough set of options to get a fair spread of options to be voted
> on. Supporting/endorsing/seconding an option should not IMHO mean "I
> want this option to be ranked high", but "I believe this option should
> appear in the ballot" - Even if you don't personally agree with it.

I agree with that POV. GR are obviously a way to make decisions, but
they are also a way to get an idea about the general opinion of
developers. As such, it is sometimes useful to add options to the
ballot, when the meaning of "Further Discussion" can be intrepreted in
various ways.

For example, in the recent "developer status" GR, we clearly needed an
option to say "I agree with those changes, and the way they were
announced", because, even for DAM, it was probably unclear whether FD
meant "please go ahead" or "let's just discuss this further".

Actually, this could be solved by allowing seconders to add a
one-sentence summary of the reasons why they seconded something. For
example, saying "I don't support that option, but I think that it should
be on the ballot". That rationale could be displayed on the vote page.
--

-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum

(Continue reading)

headers

Wouter Verhelst | 30 Dec 22:47

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> options exist. You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
> you don't plan on ranking first.

Hm.

Anthony Towns seconded his own recall vote, as DPL. Do you think he
should not have done that?

I seconded both proposal B and proposal D on 2004_004, and did not rank
both equally at number one (rather, I voted proposal B at 1, and
proposal D at 2). Do you think I should not have done that?

In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you do
not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that you
want to see resolved. The statement "I second this proposal" only means
"I want to see this voted on", not "I support this statement", and I
think that's a good thing.

There is also a somewhat more strategic reason why you may want to
propose or second an amendment for vote: the more extremist options have
less of a chance to actually win the vote; when your option is perceived
to be the most extremist one on the ballot, you may want to second or
propose another option that is even more extremist, so that yours won't
look as bad, and will have a chance of getting more votes. This kind of
behaviour is not the kind of behaviour that I would like to see from my
fellow developers, but

(Continue reading)

headers

Don Armstrong | 2 Jan 03:21

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> > would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> > and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> > options exist. You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
> > you don't plan on ranking first.
> 
> Anthony Towns seconded his own recall vote, as DPL. Do you think he
> should not have done that?

He voted 21 (FD over recall), so no. Of coure, that option had more
than 5 othere seconds, each of whom voted 12, so it didn't do anything
to cause us to vote on an option that we wouldn't of had a need to
vote on otherwise. Since 48 people voted 12, the K (or Q, 1.5Q or 2Q)
seconds could have easily come from them.

> I seconded both proposal B and proposal D on 2004_004, and did not
> rank both equally at number one (rather, I voted proposal B at 1,
> and proposal D at 2). Do you think I should not have done that?

That's fine, since you ranked them both highly. There's a benefit to
seconding options which represent compromises that you support.
There's no benefit to seconding options which you do not, just to see
them go down in flames in the election. [If an option cannot get the
required number of seconders from people who actually support it, it's
almost assuredly going down in flames in the election.]

> In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you
> do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that

(Continue reading)

headers

MJ Ray | 2 Jan 13:11

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you
> > do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that
> > you want to see resolved. The statement "I second this proposal"
> > only means "I want to see this voted on", not "I support this
> > statement", and I think that's a good thing.
>
> I disagree. We shouldn't be having votes or options on the ballot
> purely for the sake of having votes or options on the ballot. Our
> voting process exists to resolve conflicts in a manner that DDs
> support; having options that DDs do not support on the ballot does not
> help that process.

Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this.  Having options on the
ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve
conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the wider
DD population, rather than the DDs supporting them being able to blame
the self-selecting subset who participate on debian-vote.

Even if the number of seconds for a proposal is raised to something
massive like 2Q, would it be worth keeping the number of seconds for a
partial amendment at K?  If we're going to have the trouble of votes,
we might as well vote as comprehensively as possible...

(To do this, I'd probably add to the end of A.1.2 "A partial amendment
is one which changes only one point of the resolution." and add to
4.2.1 after "other Developers," the words "or if it is a partial
amendment sponsored by at least K other Developers," and keep K
defined.)

(Continue reading)

headers

Don Armstrong | 2 Jan 14:57

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this. Having options on the
> ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve
> conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the
> wider DD population,

If an option can't get seconds enough to pass K (or Q), it doesn't
have support in the DD population or the proposers are lazy, and don't
want to find enough support. In either case, people's time shouldn't
be wasted with the effort required to run a vote and vote in it.

> rather than the DDs supporting them being able to blame the
> self-selecting subset who participate on debian-vote.

If DDs who support them are unable to gather enough seconds via -vote,
nothing stops them from finding other people who support the proposal
using other methods. Furthermore, there are at least 103 DDs
subscribed to -vote[1], so arguments about some self-selecting subset
are a bit misplaced (not that that'll stop them from being made.)

> Even if the number of seconds for a proposal is raised to something
> massive like 2Q, would it be worth keeping the number of seconds for
> a partial amendment at K? If we're going to have the trouble of
> votes, we might as well vote as comprehensively as possible...

Additional options on a ballot means that voters have to spend
additional time to process the option and differentiate it between all
other options. When multiplied by the number of people who vote, that
becomes a non-trivial waste of voter's time for options which couldn't
find enough seconders who actually support the option.

(Continue reading)

headers

MJ Ray | 2 Jan 18:18

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this. Having options on the
> > ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve
> > conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the
> > wider DD population,
>
> If an option can't get seconds enough to pass K (or Q), it doesn't
> have support in the DD population or the proposers are lazy, and don't
> want to find enough support. In either case, people's time shouldn't
> be wasted with the effort required to run a vote and vote in it.

In the past, I've seen considerable resistance to vote topics being
discussed outside -vote, unless they're by one of a few popular DDs.
Do supporters of nQ expect this situation to change, only those
popular DDs be able to propose GRs, or can someone suggest acceptable
ways of recruiting seconds outside -vote?

Secondly, does the above mean that all votes that include options
which don't have either an organised campaign group or a clear
majority are wasted efforts?  Do we have a shortage of available
vote-runners and if so, why aren't we recruiting a democratic services
team instead of only one new Secretary?

> > rather than the DDs supporting them being able to blame the
> > self-selecting subset who participate on debian-vote.
>
> If DDs who support them are unable to gather enough seconds via -vote,
> nothing stops them from finding other people who support the proposal
> using other methods. Furthermore, there are at least 103 DDs

(Continue reading)

headers

Ron | 3 Jan 09:11

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> wrote:
> > If an option can't get seconds enough to pass K (or Q), it doesn't
> > have support in the DD population or the proposers are lazy, and don't
> > want to find enough support. In either case, people's time shouldn't
> > be wasted with the effort required to run a vote and vote in it.

Amen.

> In the past, I've seen considerable resistance to vote topics being
> discussed outside -vote, unless they're by one of a few popular DDs.
> Do supporters of nQ expect this situation to change, only those
> popular DDs be able to propose GRs, or can someone suggest acceptable
> ways of recruiting seconds outside -vote?

Do you advocate the current situation to NOT change?  Indeed the whole
purpose of this proposal is that things MUST change.  It seems quite
clear that recent (ab)uses of the GR process have had little positive
and immense negative affects on the project.  And I don't mean that in
the sense that "My Favourite Option May Have Lost" -- I mean that it
created massive division and even outright hostility between members of
a project that was only just beginning to show some signs of healing
from the rifts created by previous votes.

Do you really think it would have been difficult to obtain 2Q seconds
for a resolution to recall the previous vote, and postpone it until
some of the more obvious glitches had been better ironed out?  Release
early and often is not a principle we should transmute to calling votes.

We seem to have totally lost the goal of making decisions that affect

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonas Smedegaard | 3 Jan 13:46

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 06:41:56PM +1030, Ron wrote:
>It seems quite clear that recent (ab)uses of the GR process have had 
>little positive and immense negative affects on the project.  And I 
>don't mean that in the sense that "My Favourite Option May Have Lost" 
>-- I mean that it created massive division and even outright hostility 
>between members of a project that was only just beginning to show some 
>signs of healing from the rifts created by previous votes.

Those "affects on the projects" are part of a _social_ problem: lack of 
consensus about the importance of release schedule. Some find it more 
important to release than e.g. ensuring consensus on the "purity" of 
what we release. Others have the opposite opinion.

Raising the bar of getting items on GRs will not solve this underlying 
social problem. Is a technical solution to a social problem. And as such 
it will fail.

The technical aspect of raising the bar will no doubt succeeed, however: 
higher thresholds will move more of the decision making process from 
happening among all voters to only among "politically active" ones 
(those actively participating at the d-vote mailinglist).

The question is not if we want less hostility in the project (because 
this technical change cannot change that).

The question is how much "noise reduction" we want in our voting 
process.

  - Jonas

(Continue reading)

headers

MJ Ray | 5 Jan 17:50

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Ron <ron <at> debian.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > In the past, I've seen considerable resistance to vote topics being
> > discussed outside -vote, unless they're by one of a few popular DDs.
> > Do supporters of nQ expect this situation to change, only those
> > popular DDs be able to propose GRs, or can someone suggest acceptable
> > ways of recruiting seconds outside -vote?
>
> Do you advocate the current situation to NOT change? [...]

No.  I accept a change may be worthwhile, but 2Q seems very high and
suggested without reason.  (See my other messages on the topic.)

> Do you really think it would have been difficult to obtain 2Q seconds
> for a resolution to recall the previous vote, and postpone it until
> some of the more obvious glitches had been better ironed out?  [...]

Yes, based on the summary of other votes by Wouter Verhelst and others.

So, are supporters hoping this situation will change, only a few
well-connected DDs will be able to propose GRs, or what?

> We seem to have totally lost the goal of making decisions that affect
> many or all developers by consensus.  The process of building consensus
> revolves around satisfying the concerns of people who see problems with
> your planned course of action to arrive at a Better Solution.  If you
> can't get the consensus of around 30 people to begin with, it doesn't
> take a degree in advanced math or political science or military strategy
> to arrive at the conclusion that you are a LONG WAY from having the
> consensus of the whole project.

(Continue reading)

headers

Michael Goetze | 5 Jan 19:01

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

MJ Ray wrote:
> to reduce GRs, having
> another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
> answered might help.

Such as, say, writing an email to debian-devel <at> ldo?

headers

MJ Ray | 5 Jan 22:55

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Michael Goetze <mgoetze <at> mgoetze.net> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > to reduce GRs, having
> > another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
> > answered might help.
>
> Such as, say, writing an email to debian-devel <at> ldo?

On inspection, that works more than I thought, but it seems to work
better for some tasks (ftpmaster team seem to answer ~70% of questions
asked about that work there, for example) than others.

IIRC there's no certainty that anyone in particular reads
debian-devel, so how often does asking on debian-devel work?

Regards,
--

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

headers

Michael Banck | 6 Jan 17:58

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:01:17PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > to reduce GRs, having
> > another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
> > answered might help.
> 
> Such as, say, writing an email to debian-devel <at> ldo?

Eh, -devel is for technical issues pertaining to more than a single
or a few package(s).  I don't think it's a help desk.

Michael

headers

Joerg Jaspert | 5 Jan 23:37

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions


>> Do you advocate the current situation to NOT change? [...]
> No.  I accept a change may be worthwhile, but 2Q seems very high and
> suggested without reason.  (See my other messages on the topic.)

After all the mails in the thread, I *think* I go and propose something
very similar to what I initially had, and then either propose an
amendment myself that takes the lower value of Q only[1], or wait for
someone else to do that. I think its best we end up with 2 options on
the vote,

1) Increase requirements to 2Q [3:1]
2) Increase requirements to Q  [3:1]

and also the usual Further Discussion, which would be for everyone who
wants to keep the current state of 5 people. That, IMO, should fit
everyone.

[1] Yes, the proposer can also propose an amendment. And doesnt need to
accept it to change the initial proposal, so ending up with two vote
options. (Assuming it gets enough seconds).

> In general, that's correct.  In particular, if you need 30 people just
> to *start* the discussion period, that's going to kill many potential
> options before they have any chance of building consensus and others
> will be far too entrenched by the time public discussion starts;
> also, it's 30 DDs, not 30 people.

You wont need Q, 2Q, Q^1024 people to start a discussion period.
This whole thread didnt need a single second to run like it is, usually

(Continue reading)

headers

Lucas Nussbaum | 6 Jan 08:50

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On 05/01/09 at 23:37 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> 
> >> Do you advocate the current situation to NOT change? [...]
> > No.  I accept a change may be worthwhile, but 2Q seems very high and
> > suggested without reason.  (See my other messages on the topic.)
> 
> After all the mails in the thread, I *think* I go and propose something
> very similar to what I initially had, and then either propose an
> amendment myself that takes the lower value of Q only[1], or wait for
> someone else to do that. I think its best we end up with 2 options on
> the vote,
> 
> 1) Increase requirements to 2Q [3:1]
> 2) Increase requirements to Q  [3:1]
> 
> and also the usual Further Discussion, which would be for everyone who
> wants to keep the current state of 5 people. That, IMO, should fit
> everyone.

Agreed: there's no point discussing which number of seconders you want
to require now, we just need a ballot with several options.

I would also like options:
- to explicitely say that we want to stay with 5 (no further discussion
  needed)
- that we want to increase the requirements to 10. (it would probably
  be a popular compromise between the current 5 and Q)

It would be better if you could draft a ballot with all those options
yourself (maybe together with someone else). That way, we would have a

(Continue reading)

headers

Charles Plessy | 6 Jan 09:57

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Le Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:50:36AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> 
> Agreed: there's no point discussing which number of seconders you want
> to require now, we just need a ballot with several options.
> 
> I would also like options:
> - to explicitely say that we want to stay with 5 (no further discussion
>   needed)
> - that we want to increase the requirements to 10. (it would probably
>   be a popular compromise between the current 5 and Q)

Hi all,

The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a preamble that
clearly explains what problem is being solved. For the moment I do not know if
the problem is the multiplication of the amendments in the Lenny GR, the fact
that the lenny GR could even being started, the fact that an override vote
could be started to force a delegate to postpone his decisions, or a mixture of
both. Since none of this year's GRs were rejected by "Further Disucussion", I
will assume that the problem is the multiplication of amendments in the Lenny
GR. Hi hope that Jörg will clarify this in his GR proposal.

I think that allowing a proposer to call for vote on an arbitrary subset of
amendments is the best answer to the atrocious problem we faced with the Lenny
GR (together with changes on the supermajority system, but it is too early to
vote in a hurry on this issue). Are there people interested in drafting such an
amendment in the case the voting would be started? (do not hesitate to answer
in private if you want to limit the traffic on this list).

Have a nice day,

(Continue reading)

headers

Ian Jackson | 6 Jan 20:46

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General 	Resolutions"):
> The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a
> preamble that clearly explains what problem is being solved. For the
> moment I do not know if the problem is

This is a good way to look a the situation and to that end I'll give
my personal view on each of those distinct possible criticisms:

> the multiplication of the amendments in the Lenny GR,

I don't think this is a problem.  Our voting system can cope well
enough and the difficulty of comprehending six rather than three
options is not all that great.

> the fact that the lenny GR could even being started,

Well, I think a GR was inevitable.  People feel strongly about these
issues and there is no reasonable compromise between the positions of
the `hardliners' and the eventual victors in this vote.  So I think
it's appropriate for there to have been a vote.

You may say `but we decided this last time' - but we decided it only
for etch and not for lenny.  The last time, we (collectively)
specifically preferred the option of reopening the question now.

> the fact that an override vote could be started to
> force a delegate to postpone his decisions,

That's supposed to be possible and I don't think that was the problem.

(Continue reading)

headers

Joerg Jaspert | 7 Jan 00:20

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On 11622 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:

> The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a preamble that
> clearly explains what problem is being solved.

The goal is to change the needed seconds for a GR.

> For the moment I do not know if the problem is the multiplication of
> the amendments in the Lenny GR,

No.

> the fact that the lenny GR could even being started,

No, as the change of the requirements will *not* mean that such a GR
cant be started. Nor should it mean this.

> the fact that an override vote could be started to force a delegate to
> postpone his decisions,

Reread my proposal, I deliberately made that only need half the
seconds than normal GRs.

--

-- 
bye, Joerg
<aj> vorlon: would it be less subtle if we replaced red, green and
     yellow with black, white and a shade of grey?
<vorlon> aj: "and this is what a necrotic port looks like"?
<aj> vorlon: the arch qualification table, halloween edition?
<aj> vorlon: "i heard a faint pinging, and went to the firewall and what

(Continue reading)

headers

Ana Guerrero | 7 Jan 00:42

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 12:20:29AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11622 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
> 
> > The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a preamble that
> > clearly explains what problem is being solved.
> 
> The goal is to change the needed seconds for a GR.
>

This goal is pretty clear, but I do wonder too what problem it tries to solve.

Ana

headers

Ian Jackson | 8 Jan 21:13

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions"):
> On 11622 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a
> > preamble that clearly explains what problem is being solved.
> 
> The goal is to change the needed seconds for a GR.

I think you've misunderstood Charles's question.  We understand that
you would like to change the number of seconds.  The question, which I
would like to see you answer as well, is what the _purpose_ of that
change would be.

What problem(s) would be (perhaps partially) solved, or what
improvements do you think would result ?

Thanks,
Ian.

headers

MJ Ray | 6 Jan 12:21

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Joerg Jaspert <joerg <at> debian.org> wrote:
> > In general, that's correct.  In particular, if you need 30 people just
> > to *start* the discussion period, that's going to kill many potential
> > options before they have any chance of building consensus and others
> > will be far too entrenched by the time public discussion starts;
> > also, it's 30 DDs, not 30 people.
>
> You wont need Q, 2Q, Q^1024 people to start a discussion period.
> This whole thread didnt need a single second to run like it is, usually
> all our flames don't need them.
> Yes, this is not the formal discussion period, but if you fear you wont
> get enough seconds, or might not be sure its the best to do, going the
> way I did with this seems to be ok, and able to draw attention from
> people.

There's not a discussion period and a "formal" discussion period.
There's *the* discussion period and a bunch of DDs shooting the breeze
like this.  Many DDs ignore -project and even most stuff on -vote
unless/until it looks likely to get enough seconds, don't they?

> Of course I do defend what I want. Yet, I still read and keep in mind
> what others think.

OK, thanks.  I hope no-one minds, but it didn't read like that yet.

> > Here's a summary list of concerns I mentioned in other emails:-
> > 1. 2Q is unjustified and excessive;
>
> I did justify it. "If you cant find 30 people out of 1000 that are in
> the project, why bother 1000 to vote on it?".

(Continue reading)

headers

Stephen Gran | 6 Jan 21:26

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> Joerg Jaspert <joerg <at> debian.org> wrote:
> 
> Many DDs ignore -project and even most stuff on -vote
> unless/until it looks likely to get enough seconds, don't they?

You're the one making the assertion, I think the onus is on you to prove
it.  The discussion so far on this topic has, to my mind, suggested the
opposite reading.  We've seen postings from several people who don't
normally post to -vote (and they've been fairly uniformly in support
of the ideas being proposed, at a glance), which suggests to me that we
have more lurkers than you are assuming.

> > > Here's a summary list of concerns I mentioned in other emails:-
> > > 1. 2Q is unjustified and excessive;
> >
> > I did justify it. "If you cant find 30 people out of 1000 that are in
> > the project, why bother 1000 to vote on it?".
> 
> Why 30?  Why not 130?  Why not 300?  The particular number is unjustified.

I personally would be happy with a higher number, but 30 is a conservative
first start.  Would you be happier if the suggestion was 4Q or 10Q?

> I'm not good at interpreting complex constitutions, but I think a GR
> could pass with (3Q/2)+1 votes preferring it to Further Discussion.
> Requiring more seconds than votes in support seems a bit unusual, to
> put it mildly.  Is there any other voting system that has that?

Basic math says that in the described two way vote, if an option wins

(Continue reading)

headers

Stephen Gran | 6 Jan 21:59

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

This one time, at band camp, Stephen Gran said:
> Basic math says that in the described two way vote, if an option wins
> by 1.5Q, and the vote needs 3Q to be quorate, the number of people who
> have voted for the option is 2.25Q, which is more than the proposal.
> I don't think this is an argument against the proposal, unless I'm
> mistaking what you're talking about.

Eh, ignore this.  It was based on a (mis)memory of a requirement for
the vote as a whole to have 3Q voters.  The way devotee currently works,
it seems each option needs 3Q to pass quorum requirements.  This means
that it's not 2.25Q who voted for the option, but a minimum of 3Q.

I'm still not sure how this helps your argument, but I thought I'd
mention I was wrong in my first reading.
--

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran <at> debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

headers

MJ Ray | 7 Jan 11:04

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Stephen Gran <sgran <at> debian.org> wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > Many DDs ignore -project and even most stuff on -vote
> > unless/until it looks likely to get enough seconds, don't they?
>
> You're the one making the assertion, I think the onus is on you to prove
> it.

Previously, I noted that fewer than 80 people participated in even the
hotly disputed lenny blobs GR discussion.  That suggests to me that
lots of DDs aren't participating until the vote.

It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but disproof is
simple: please could all DDs reading this email mjr-possiblegr at
debian.org.  I'll count with from -f possiblegr.mbox | wc -l in a week.

> The discussion so far on this topic has, to my mind, suggested the
> opposite reading.  We've seen postings from several people who don't
> normally post to -vote (and they've been fairly uniformly in support
> of the ideas being proposed, at a glance), which suggests to me that we
> have more lurkers than you are assuming.

Cross-checking names of posters to this thread on -project with an
index of posters to -vote finds *no* new participants.  That comes
down to how one defines "normal" in "normally post to -vote".

> > > > Here's a summary list of concerns I mentioned in other emails:-
> > > > 1. 2Q is unjustified and excessive; [...]
> > Why 30?  Why not 130?  Why not 300?  The particular number is unjustified.
>

(Continue reading)

headers

Cyril Brulebois | 7 Jan 11:16

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> (07/01/2009):
> Previously, I noted that fewer than 80 people participated in even the
> hotly disputed lenny blobs GR discussion.  That suggests to me that
> lots of DDs aren't participating until the vote.
> 
> It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but disproof is
> simple: please could all DDs reading this email mjr-possiblegr at
> debian.org.  I'll count with from -f possiblegr.mbox | wc -l in a
> week.

Even for people who might try and follow those lengthy so-called
discussions, extra-long mails like Ron's or yours makes it likely
that From→mark-as-read actions appear.

I wouldn't call your hiding foo at bar in one of them a simple
disproof of anything.

Mraw,
KiBi.

headers

MJ Ray | 7 Jan 14:10

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Cyril Brulebois <kibi <at> debian.org> wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> (07/01/2009):
> > It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but disproof is
> > simple: please could all DDs reading this email mjr-possiblegr at
> > debian.org.  I'll count with from -f possiblegr.mbox | wc -l in a
> > week.
>
> Even for people who might try and follow those lengthy so-called
> discussions, extra-long mails like Ron's or yours makes it likely
> that From→mark-as-read actions appear.
>
> I wouldn't call your hiding foo at bar in one of them a simple
> disproof of anything.

If that email address gets lots of responses, it simply disproves my
claim that no DDs are watching this sort of discussion.  If it gets no
responses, it still doesn't prove my claim, but how could I prove it?
At least I'm trying to check if my belief is wrong, instead of just
contradicting other people.

In case thread-killing is significant, I'll post it as a new thread.

Hope that helps,
--

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

headers

Adeodato Simó | 7 Jan 11:21

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

* MJ Ray [Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:04:50 +0000]:

> It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but disproof is
> simple: please could all DDs reading this email mjr-possiblegr at
> debian.org.  I'll count with from -f possiblegr.mbox | wc -l in a week.

o/` I am speechless, speechless 
    That's how you make me feel 
    When I'm with you I am lost for words, I don't know what to say 
    Helpless and hopeless, that's how I feel inside o/`

        -- Another MJ

(In other words, I don't understand what possible correlation there
could be between people following or not an experiment by you *deep
buried in a thread pattern*, and people seconding an amendment they
agree with, knowing it still needs, say, 12 seconds.)

-- 
Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org

                             Listening to: Justin Nozuka - After Tonight

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

headers

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho | 11 Jan 10:44

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 11:37:01PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>I think its best we end up with 2 options on the vote,
> 
> 1) Increase requirements to 2Q [3:1]
> 2) Increase requirements to Q  [3:1]
> 
> and also the usual Further Discussion, which would be for everyone who
> wants to keep the current state of 5 people. That, IMO, should fit
> everyone.

It seems to me it's a mistake to attribute to FD any meaning other than "let
the discussion continue".  If I prefer the current arrangement, I don't want to
vote for further discussion, I want to vote for *stop the discussion*.

If Further Discussion wins a vote which lacks an explicit status quo option,
how does one interpret it?  Clearly, none of the options were good enough, but
was the problem that people don't want to change or that people want to change
it to some other value not listed?

Hence, a third option "keep the requirement as it is" would probably be a good
idea.

--

-- 
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland
http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/

headers

Ron | 6 Jan 18:34

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> Ron <ron <at> debian.org> wrote:
> > Do you really think it would have been difficult to obtain 2Q seconds
> > for a resolution to recall the previous vote, and postpone it until
> > some of the more obvious glitches had been better ironed out?  [...]
> 
> Yes, based on the summary of other votes by Wouter Verhelst and others.

I don't really think you can extrapolate from examples of past votes
that got considerably more seconds than they required to suggest that
proves we'll have trouble getting enough seconds for important issues.

In fact if past votes had regularly got 600+% more seconds than they
had required that would suggest to me that some large proportion of
people didn't actually understand the system they were participating
in.  It makes _no_ difference how many people second once the required
number is reached, so except in a few rare cases I _would_ quite expect
most thinking people (the type I'd most prefer to be involved in any
vote) to resist the urge to post more of them just for the "me too"
value of it.

Those results are not surprising, and if anything make it clear we
can easily get more seconds for notable issues than is currently
required.  How many more is debatable, but this isn't very good
evidence for your assertion that 30 people is a "very high" bar.

> So, are supporters hoping this situation will change, only a few
> well-connected DDs will be able to propose GRs, or what?

I don't consider myself "well-connected", but I don't really have

(Continue reading)

headers

MJ Ray | 8 Jan 07:49

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Ron <ron <at> debian.org> wrote:
[...Wouter Verhelst's counts...]
> Those results are not surprising, and if anything make it clear we
> can easily get more seconds for notable issues than is currently
> required.  How many more is debatable, but this isn't very good
> evidence for your assertion that 30 people is a "very high" bar.

So provide other evidence, or at least point towards it.  I'm using
what I've got and I can't use what I've not got.

> [...] The _formal_ discussion period
> is limited in length, and IMO quite short.  Far too short in fact to
> actually achieve a real, well considered, consensus in that time.

OK, so this proposal means people would spend more time on each GR.
I feel that's probably a bad consequence.

> MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] also, it's 30 DDs, not 30 people.
>
> I'm not sure what you aim to imply there?  Are DDs more like sheep
> than 'people' are or vice versa?

Neither.  Just there are vote discussion posters who are not DDs.

> > 1. 2Q is unjustified and excessive;
>
> The justification (or perhaps 'last straw') is the poor quality
> of recent vote options, where many people even had quite some
> difficulty figuring out what the difference between any two

(Continue reading)

headers

Bernd Zeimetz | 30 Dec 01:50

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions


Hi,

 > ========================================================================
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]

not sure if we need floor(2Q) here, but at least floor(Q).

>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]

what I'd like to add here is something in the lines of

d) If a resolution will affect an upcoming release which is already frozen,
the resolution needs twice the number of sponsors as defined in a).

This should help to avoid that some random people try to stop a release in the
latest moment if there's not a really good reason to do so. If we want Debian
to be used in business ("enterprise" *gasp*) installations, we should at least
be able to tell people when we're about to release, without having them to
fear a delay for months or years due to a GR.

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonas Smedegaard | 30 Dec 02:46

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions


On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>
>what I'd like to add here is something in the lines of
>
>d) If a resolution will affect an upcoming release which is already 
>   frozen, the resolution needs twice the number of sponsors as defined 
>   in a).
>
>This should help to avoid that some random people try to stop a release 
>in the latest moment if there's not a really good reason to do so. If 
>we want Debian to be used in business ("enterprise" *gasp*) 
>installations, we should at least be able to tell people when we're 
>about to release, without having them to fear a delay for months or 
>years due to a GR.

I disagree: Debian release when ready, not in time. Which is good!

If anyone creates a vote close to (expected) release, then they have a 
good reason to do that. Which we should not suppress by designing our 
rules to favor releasing "in time".

  - Jonas

--

--

(Continue reading)

headers

Bernd Zeimetz | 30 Dec 09:52

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>>>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>>>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>>>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>>>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>> what I'd like to add here is something in the lines of
> 
>> d) If a resolution will affect an upcoming release which is already 
>>   frozen, the resolution needs twice the number of sponsors as defined 
>>   in a).
> 
>> This should help to avoid that some random people try to stop a release 
>> in the latest moment if there's not a really good reason to do so. If 
>> we want Debian to be used in business ("enterprise" *gasp*) 
>> installations, we should at least be able to tell people when we're 
>> about to release, without having them to fear a delay for months or 
>> years due to a GR.
> 
> I disagree: Debian release when ready, not in time. Which is good!
> 
> If anyone creates a vote close to (expected) release, then they have a 
> good reason to do that. Which we should not suppress by designing our 
> rules to favor releasing "in time".

If there's a good reason to create the GR I'm sure they'd find enough
sponsors. Realeasing in time becomes more and more important these days - so I
can't see anything wrong here.

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonas Smedegaard | 30 Dec 14:53

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions


On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>>>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>>>>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>>>>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>>>>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>>>>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>>> what I'd like to add here is something in the lines of
>> 
>>> d) If a resolution will affect an upcoming release which is already 
>>>   frozen, the resolution needs twice the number of sponsors as defined 
>>>   in a).
>> 
>>> This should help to avoid that some random people try to stop a release 
>>> in the latest moment if there's not a really good reason to do so. If 
>>> we want Debian to be used in business ("enterprise" *gasp*) 
>>> installations, we should at least be able to tell people when we're 
>>> about to release, without having them to fear a delay for months or 
>>> years due to a GR.
>> 
>> I disagree: Debian release when ready, not in time. Which is good!
>> 
>> If anyone creates a vote close to (expected) release, then they have a 
>> good reason to do that. Which we should not suppress by designing our 
>> rules to favor releasing "in time".
>
>If there's a good reason to create the GR I'm sure they'd find enough
>sponsors. Realeasing in time becomes more and more important these days - so I

(Continue reading)

headers

Joerg Jaspert | 30 Dec 11:15

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions


>> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>>     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
> not sure if we need floor(2Q) here, but at least floor(Q).

It is 2Q as I do want a seperation to the one in b) (to stop a
delegate/DPL/the TC). And I dislike going below Q for any option, so b)
has the lower, Q, and a is 2Q.
Besides, its only 30 people with floor(2Q)...

> d) If a resolution will affect an upcoming release which is already frozen,
> the resolution needs twice the number of sponsors as defined in a).

While I dislike the GR we just had so short before release I don't think
making a special case for a release is good. If it is I want a special
case for DAM too, every override of a DAM decision takes 6Q at least!
Well, joking, the point is just that its an exception for one special
case which I dislike.

> This should help to avoid that some random people try to stop a release in the
> latest moment if there's not a really good reason to do so. If we want Debian
> to be used in business ("enterprise" *gasp*) installations, we should at least
> be able to tell people when we're about to release, without having them to
> fear a delay for months or years due to a GR.

Now, this proposal changes it from "some random people" counting to 5 up
to 30. I think thats enough, if you find so many supporters for your GR,
then yes, even a release might have to wait.

(Continue reading)

headers

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh | 30 Dec 18:11

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
> >>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> >>     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
> > not sure if we need floor(2Q) here, but at least floor(Q).
> 
> It is 2Q as I do want a seperation to the one in b) (to stop a
> delegate/DPL/the TC). And I dislike going below Q for any option, so b)
> has the lower, Q, and a is 2Q.
> Besides, its only 30 people with floor(2Q)...

I'd find 1.5Q more palatable.

30 people is not much when you compare it with 1000.  But the ammount of
people that are interested enough in Debian processes to actually notice
there is something they would like to "second" is a lot less...

In fact, while I find floor(1.5Q) acceptable, I'd rather have it at
floor(Q).

> > d) If a resolution will affect an upcoming release which is already frozen,
> > the resolution needs twice the number of sponsors as defined in a).
> 
> While I dislike the GR we just had so short before release I don't think
> making a special case for a release is good. If it is I want a special

Agreed.

--

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring

(Continue reading)

headers

gregor herrmann | 30 Dec 02:03

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:54:41 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
> its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC
> discussions told me that others feel the same. 

I agree that raising the barriers would be a good idea.

Cheers,
gregor 
--

-- 
 .''`.   Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'   Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
   `-    NP: Tina Turner: The Best

headers

Raphael Hertzog | 30 Dec 08:59

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
> its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC

Why are you saying 5 ? Your proposal requires 30.

Recent votes have shown that some options tended to have more
seconds than the others but we never reached 30. We had 17 for
"Exclude source requirements for firmware" and 21 for 
"Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a
new proposal.".

Note that with those new requirements some interesting
amendments/alternate choices would not have made it in several of the votes
(although different rules would have probably lead more people to second).

Anyway 2Q is too much in my opinion. Q would be much more reasonable.

It would be also be good to add a sentence inviting the seconders to
explain why they second the proposal. At least it would make the many
formal mails to second proposals somewhat interesting to read
(they could even be linked from the vote web page so that voters who have
not taken part in the discussion can refer to the reasoning of those who
have brought the option to the vote).

> only. I'm *not* calling for seconders with this mail. Thats also the

(Continue reading)

headers

Joerg Jaspert | 30 Dec 11:19

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions


>> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
>> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
>> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
>> its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC
> Why are you saying 5 ? Your proposal requires 30.

Oh well. Imagine I wrote 30 there. :)

> Recent votes have shown that some options tended to have more
> seconds than the others but we never reached 30. We had 17 for
> "Exclude source requirements for firmware" and 21 for 
> "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a
> new proposal.".

We never reached 30 as it wasn't neccessary, so people did not second an
option after it got lots of seconders already.

> Note that with those new requirements some interesting
> amendments/alternate choices would not have made it in several of the votes
> (although different rules would have probably lead more people to second).

If they had been so interesting they sure would have reached 30
seconders, no?

> Anyway 2Q is too much in my opinion. Q would be much more reasonable.

See my reply to Bernd why I think its not.

> It would be also be good to add a sentence inviting the seconders to

(Continue reading)

headers

Raphael Hertzog | 31 Dec 10:08

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Anyway 2Q is too much in my opinion. Q would be much more reasonable.
> 
> See my reply to Bernd why I think its not.

It seems like most people who responded preferred Q up to now. It might
end up as an amendment otherwise. :)

> > It would be also be good to add a sentence inviting the seconders to
> > explain why they second the proposal. At least it would make the many
> > formal mails to second proposals somewhat interesting to read
> > (they could even be linked from the vote web page so that voters who have
> > not taken part in the discussion can refer to the reasoning of those who
> > have brought the option to the vote).
> 
> As a must or as a should? A should would probably work.

A should. There's no point forcing anyone to justify his acts, but it's
better if he does IMO.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

(Continue reading)

headers

Frans Pop | 30 Dec 09:47

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tuesday 30 December 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),

The main reason I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this is that in practice 
not all 1000 developers participate in a vote, but only about 300 (367 in 
last vote) or so. The number of developers following d-vote is also a lot 
lower than the total number of DDs.

So effectively requiring 30 supporters means that you'll need support from 
a substantial portion of DDs following d-vote. I personally feel it is 
important that minority opinions do have a chance to be reflected on a 
ballot: there has to be something to choose.

Could/should we distinguish between the number of supporters needed to 
propose a GR (i.e. for the initial proposal) and the number of supporters 
needed for amendments? Problem there is of course the fact that proposals 
may end up as amendments and vice versa.

The last vote has also shown one other issue. In some cases it turns out 
that proposed amendments should really e voted on separately. In that 
case it would be good if the secretary could propose a "voting order" 
when splitting a ballot, but currently there is no mechanism by which a 
vote can be delayed.

Example: first vote on whether or not to release Lenny and then hold a 
separate vote on "Exclude source requirements for firmware" and "Empower 
release team" proposals (probably with a new discussion period to allow 
proposal of suitable amendments).

(Continue reading)

headers

Colin Tuckley | 30 Dec 10:57

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
> its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone.

Agreed, as you mentioned it's been talked about on IRC a few times recently.

>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]

In my opinion that's too high. I'd be more comfortable with K = Q.

> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),

Actually, 31 (depending on where you do the rounding/truncation which would
have to be specified or there will be arguments).

regards,

Colin

--
Colin Tuckley      |  +44(0)1903 236872  |  PGP/GnuPG Key Id
Debian Developer   |  +44(0)7799 143369  |     0x1B3045CE

Error 1232: Windows has run out of errors.  Run Windows Update to download more.

(Continue reading)

headers

Joerg Jaspert | 30 Dec 11:21

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions


>> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
>> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
> Actually, 31 (depending on where you do the rounding/truncation which would
> have to be specified or there will be arguments).

floor() in this case. Well, my idea was just to "drop everything behind
the .". So floor(), int(), whatever it is in your favorite language. :)

-- 
bye, Joerg
Oh mann, beim Backlog-Lesen sollte man weder essen noch trinken. Ihr schweine.
		-- Jörg Jaspert

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

headers

Russ Allbery | 30 Dec 18:33

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Joerg Jaspert <joerg <at> debian.org> writes:

>>> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
>>> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
>> Actually, 31 (depending on where you do the rounding/truncation which would
>> have to be specified or there will be arguments).
>
> floor() in this case. Well, my idea was just to "drop everything behind
> the .". So floor(), int(), whatever it is in your favorite language. :)

It's not so much the function as it is the order of operations.  It sounds
like you meant 2 * floor(Q) instead of floor(2Q).  :)

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

headers

Jonas Smedegaard | 30 Dec 18:55

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions


On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:21:34AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
>>> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support 
>>> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
>> Actually, 31 (depending on where you do the rounding/truncation which 
>> would have to be specified or there will be arguments).
>
>floor() in this case. Well, my idea was just to "drop everything behind 
>the .". So floor(), int(), whatever it is in your favorite language. :)

I believe you wrote that Q is approx 15.9765453086705, so...

floor(2Q) = 31

2(floor(Q)) = 30



   - Jonas

--

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

   [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

headers

Neil McGovern | 30 Dec 11:33

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:54:41AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
> 

Hi Joerg,

Thanks for bringing this up. I feel that 2Q is possibly too large
however. I'd suggest:

Therefore the Debian project resolves that:
  a) Section 4.2 of the Debian Constitution is amended, replacing all
  references to K with Q.
  b) 4.2.7 is reworded to state:
     Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers.
	 Q need not be an integer and is not rounded.

Reasoning:
a) Q people should be enough to start a GR. The use of the "override a
   delegate's decision immediately" is something that should not be

(Continue reading)

headers

Joerg Jaspert | 30 Dec 13:47

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions


>> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>>     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
> Thanks for bringing this up. I feel that 2Q is possibly too large
> however. I'd suggest:

> Therefore the Debian project resolves that:
>   a) Section 4.2 of the Debian Constitution is amended, replacing all
>   references to K with Q.
>   b) 4.2.7 is reworded to state:
>      Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers.
> 	 Q need not be an integer and is not rounded.

Interesting, that makes it harder to stop a delegate as compared to my
proposal. Not that thats bad. :)

> Reasoning:
> a) Q people should be enough to start a GR. The use of the "override a
>    delegate's decision immediately" is something that should not be
>    taken lightly. This should still require 2Q.

Ok. Fine.

> b) No more reference to K, tidy up. Keep the non-rounded float nature

(Continue reading)

headers

Kalle Kivimaa | 30 Dec 13:54

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Joerg Jaspert <joerg <at> debian.org> writes:
> Or we have 2 vote options, one for 2Q, one for Q. What makes more sense?
> Guess changing mine, to avoid confusion/too many options?! (All just
> dreaming ahead to a possible vote :) )

I don't think having options for 2Q and Q for resolution sponsoring
makes the ballot too confusing, provided we don't end up with dozens
of options.

--

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*           PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer           *

headers

Bernd Zeimetz | 5 Jan 17:42

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Hi :)

Neil McGovern wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up. I feel that 2Q is possibly too large
> however. I'd suggest:
> 
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that:
>   a) Section 4.2 of the Debian Constitution is amended, replacing all
>   references to K with Q.
>   b) 4.2.7 is reworded to state:
>      Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers.
> 	 Q need not be an integer and is not rounded.

So we have Q people in case of floor(Q)==Q and floor(Q)+1 otherwise?

Cheers,

Bernd

--

-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                           Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79

headers

Steve Langasek | 6 Jan 01:28

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:

> Neil McGovern wrote:
> > Thanks for bringing this up. I feel that 2Q is possibly too large
> > however. I'd suggest:

> > Therefore the Debian project resolves that:
> >   a) Section 4.2 of the Debian Constitution is amended, replacing all
> >   references to K with Q.
> >   b) 4.2.7 is reworded to state:
> >      Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers.
> > 	 Q need not be an integer and is not rounded.

> So we have Q people in case of floor(Q)==Q and floor(Q)+1 otherwise?

I.e., ceil(Q) ?

--

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek <at> ubuntu.com                                     vorlon <at> debian.org

headers

MJ Ray | 30 Dec 14:52

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Joerg Jaspert <joerg <at> debian.org> wrote:
>
> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
> considering that a GR affects more than 1000 official Developers and
> uncounted amounts of other people doing work for Debian, I think its not
> too much. Especially as point b only requires 15 people, 3 times the
> amount than now, in case there is a disagreement with the DPL, TC or
> a Delegate.

I think that's too much.  A quick count of discussions around the
recent GR suggests that only 79 people participated and I'm sure
that included many non-DDs.  Given that a reasonable ballot would
have 4 alternatives (one-off exception, permanent exception, no
exceptions ever and release team discretion) as well as
compromise options (which rarely appear at the minute), I think
finding 4 groups of 30 DDs from 79 posters is unlikely.  If the
recent criticism of DDs who second worthy-but-not-preferred
options succeeds in discouraging them, it would be impossible.

What are the consequences of setting the bar too high?  Well, I
think it would favour organised campaign groups, it encourages
clustering around flags too early rather than seeking compromises
and the first hint of voter fatigue will probably result in no
further options being added to the ballot.  That would be fine if
people sought compromise *before* calling for seconds (as is
happening now) but there is no requirement for that and it
doesn't seem to have happened often in the archives.

What number of seconds do other systems require for a proposal?

(Continue reading)

headers

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh | 30 Dec 18:17

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> What are the consequences of setting the bar too high?  Well, I
> think it would favour organised campaign groups, it encourages
> clustering around flags too early rather than seeking compromises

This is a very compelling argument, and it convinced me that I shouldn't
vote even for 1.5Q.  I'd go for floor(Q) or less, but not more.

--

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

headers

Wouter Verhelst | 30 Dec 18:21

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:54:41AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Practical changes: Taking the definitions of the latest GR we had,
> 
>  Current Developer Count = 1021
>  Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9765453086705
>  Quorum  (3 x Q )       = 47.9296359260114
> 
> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
> considering that a GR affects more than 1000 official Developers and
> uncounted amounts of other people doing work for Debian, I think its not
> too much.

Well, I disagree on that point. I just had a look at the vote.debian.org
pages, checking those votes where the number of seconds exceeded 10, and
found only the following ones:
- Proposal F on the last vote; 17 seconds
- Proposal A on 2008_002 (membership); 21 seconds
- Proposal A on 2007_004 (length DPL election); 20 seconds
- Amendment A on 2006_001 (GFDL); 15 seconds
- Proposal E on 2004_004 (sarge release after 2004_003): 16 seconds
- Amendment on 2004_002 (status of non-free): 12 seconds

That's 6 out of 16 votes where _one_ amendment or proposal had more
than 10 seconds; many of them had more than one amendment or proposal,
but none of them had two amendments or proposals with more than 10
seconds.

Now I do realize and agree that many people will probably not second
something anymore once a sufficient number of seconds has been issued;

(Continue reading)

headers

MJ Ray | 30 Dec 19:48

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote: [...]
> Well, I disagree on that point. I just had a look at the vote.debian.org
> pages, checking those votes where the number of seconds exceeded 10, and
> found only the following ones:

I add the outcomes to the start of the line:-

Proposal F chosen > - Proposal F on the last vote; 17 seconds
Proposal A chosen > - Proposal A on 2008_002 (membership); 21 seconds
Proposal A chosen > - Proposal A on 2007_004 (length DPL election); 20 seconds
Amendment A chosen > - Amendment A on 2006_001 (GFDL); 15 seconds
Proposal B chosen > - Proposal E on 2004_004 (sarge release after 2004_003): 16 seconds
Amendment chosen > - Amendment on 2004_002 (status of non-free): 12 seconds

So, in one case, the outcome was different to the most-seconded option.

[...]
> Now I do realize and agree that many people will probably not second
> something anymore once a sufficient number of seconds has been issued;
> but I think that, all things considered, 30 may be too much.

Yes and more generally: I think there are obviously some interactions
between being the first proposal, the number of seconds gathered, the
voting preferences (and so the outcome) and the current required
number of seconds.  It's this last element which makes this analysis
so unreliable, but the others play a part.

> [...] However, raising the bar sixfold in one go is pushing it, IMO.

I agree.  There seems little rationale to support it.  The more I've

(Continue reading)

headers

Frans Pop | 30 Dec 20:03

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tuesday 30 December 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> I add the outcomes to the start of the line:-
> Proposal F chosen > - Proposal F on the last vote; 17 seconds

Eh, that's incorrect.

headers

MJ Ray | 30 Dec 23:06

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Frans Pop <elendil <at> planet.nl> wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 December 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I add the outcomes to the start of the line:-
> > Proposal F chosen > - Proposal F on the last vote; 17 seconds
>
> Eh, that's incorrect.

Eh, that's unhelpful.  I found both the email's terms and some of
the more recent vote pages a bit confusing.  I'm pretty sure I've
suggested an improved layout to the secretary in the past, but it
was ignored.

Please correct any goofs if you've spotted them.  Anyway, that's
two out of seven, which makes the point I took stronger, not weaker.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

headers

Adeodato Simó | 30 Dec 20:35

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

* Wouter Verhelst [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:21:58 +0100]:

I'm still undecided whether I'm for Q, 2Q, or what. But:

> Well, I disagree on that point. I just had a look at the vote.debian.org
> pages, checking those votes where the number of seconds exceeded 10, and
> found only the following ones:

I don't think that's a fair consideration. We all know a proposal needs
5 seconds, so if we see one we'd second has the 5 already, I think it's
natural to pass. The popular proposal notwithstanding.

-- 
Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org

A hacker does for love what other would not do for money.

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

headers

Charles Plessy | 30 Dec 23:57

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Dear all,

since it is rare that a GR is rejected by a majority of persons ranking
"Further discussion" above all, I do not think that there is a need to make it
more difficult to propose a GR. Nevertheless, in light of the painful firmware
GR this year, I think that the following ideas can help to avoid such a
situation to happen again.

- Restrict the use of 3:1 supermajority to GRs proposing changes of our fundation
  documents.

- Authorise the proposer of a GR to call for a vote on a subset of the amendments. 

- Authorise the Secretary to use non-email methods, as email voting seems to be
  is a repeated source of problems. Programs like Selectricity look like
  interesting alternative (http://selectricity.org/).

- Ask the GR proposer to take part of the work load, for instance by gathering
  and counting the PGP-signed secondings and writing the vote.debian.org page.

If despite this the Project would require ~15 seconders per GR and amendments,
I suggest to think about a new place and/or method to handle the formal
PGP-signed emails of the GR preparation procedure, otherwise debian-vote can
really become unreadable.

Have a nice day,

--

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

(Continue reading)

headers

Ben Finney | 31 Dec 01:19

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Charles Plessy <plessy <at> debian.org> writes:

> in light of the painful firmware GR this year, I think that the
> following ideas can help to avoid such a situation to happen again.
> 
> - Restrict the use of 3:1 supermajority to GRs proposing changes of
> our fundation documents.

This restriction would not address the perceived problems with the
gr_lenny_firmware ballot. Recall that “changes to the foundation
documents” was the very justification for why the 3:1 supermajority
requirements were applied as they were.

What it seems is that some people (including you?) disagree with some
others on *what* constitutes a change to foundation documents. That
seems to be the point that needs better clarification.

> - Ask the GR proposer to take part of the work load, for instance by
> gathering and counting the PGP-signed secondings and writing the
> vote.debian.org page.

I like this idea for its “share the load” effect, but I can see a
change in conflict of interest if the person who proposes the GR also
gets to write up the formal vote document.

--

-- 
 \        “I installed a skylight in my apartment. The people who live |
  `\                             above me are furious!” —Steven Wright |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

(Continue reading)

headers

Giacomo A. Catenazzi | 6 Jan 11:57

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
> its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone.

> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
> considering that a GR affects more than 1000 official Developers and
> uncounted amounts of other people doing work for Debian, I think its not
> too much. Especially as point b only requires 15 people, 3 times the
> amount than now, in case there is a disagreement with the DPL, TC or
> a Delegate.

I agree that actual quote is to low, but I don't think things will
change with an higher quote.

FYI in Switzerland:
for a "GR" resolution we need 100 000 subscribers, i.e. 2% of
potential voters (4.3% of actual voters), and it is more difficult
that seconding a Debian GR.

Anyway, since 2000 it was called more than 30 times [1] (and all
but twice the "GR" was rejected).
For this reason, I think an higher quote probably will not reduce the
number of GRs.

ciao

(Continue reading)